jobs_cancel

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but say nothing about timing. The description adds that this is a *request* (not synchronous) and that the job reaches a terminal state observable via jobs_status — genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It stops short of noting reversibility or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the essential next step. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the async workflow is conveyed. For a mutation tool with no explicit permission or reversibility notes, a small gap remains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single job_id parameter, so the schema gives no semantic help. The description only implies through 'authorized job' that the id must belong to a job the caller is permitted to cancel, adding minimal meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Request cancellation of an authorized job') and implicitly contrasts with the polling tool it names, jobs_status. It doesn't distinguish itself from other job-related siblings like jobs_list, but the action is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear follow-up guidance: 'poll jobs_status until terminal,' which tells the agent this is asynchronous and how to complete the workflow. It does not state when cancellation is inappropriate (e.g., already-terminal jobs) or name any exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.